Politics, parenting and other prattlings.

March 31, 2006

War Kids Relief

I don't often say must read, but today I have to urge you to read Jeff Harrell's piece about Captain Jon Powers and his personal mission to rebuild youth centers in Iraq.

In late 2003, Jon was on a routine — if anything in such a place can be called routine — humanitarian mission to a Baghdad orphanage called St. Hannah's when one of the nuns took him aside. She asked him not to come visit the children again. If the insurgents, who were _always_ watching, saw the American soldiers visiting the orphanage again, she said, they would massacre the children.

Jon Powers never meant to be a soldier. He wanted to be a teacher. He didn't want to put kids in danger. He wanted to take care of them.

It was in that moment, that horrible, sinking moment, that the idea for War Kids Relief was born.

Put OUT the flame before drinking the shot!

March 30, 2006

Reproductive 'rights' will never be equal

Of course, I say that if we conflate three separate events and call them, collectively, reproductive rights. Those three events are:

Consensual sex

Gestation

Parenting

Men and women are exactly "equal" in the first point. The third point has many problems, social and legal (especially dealing with unwed parents), but it actually is an arena in which people of good will can craft policies to equalize responsibilities and obligations between the sexes.

However, it is point two, dealing with gestation/abortion, that is the major bone of contention between all the screaming for or against the mean-spirited "Roe v Wade for Men" lawsuit.

Scrape away all the lying and biological fallacies that attempt to pass for serious discussion about abortion, one is left with a clear (in in this discussion) two part point of discussion of legal policies.

At what point post-conception does the fetus become an individual worthy of legal intervention to protect it from harm and/or death

AND

If that point is fixed at a particular point after conception (ie 20 weeks), who will have controlling authority over the fetus prior to that point?

Now, in the collective reproductive rights (CRR) lobby, one finds either the extreme Feminist meme of "it's my body and you can't say anything about it or anything that comes out of it" vs the MRA (men's rights advocates) meme of "If women get to choose to be parents, it is discrimination if we men don't have the same right!". Under all the screeching, Feminists know, but won't admit, that the "body integrity" rant is really about power over men using the life/death of a child to wield it, just as the MRAs know, but won't admit, that the "I should not have to pay child support" rant is really about power over women using money to wield it.

This debate has really hit the skids because of several factors that make child bearing and raising less of one done within intact, married households than ever before. MRAs want to use point three to revenge point two. Feminists want point two with no interference, but also want point two to force point three in their favor.

And if you want to complicate the matter of CRR's even further, start talking responsibilities and obligation of adoptions (see Jeff Goldstein).

Let me propose a rather radical, Gordian knot kind of solution.

Conception/Gestation/Birth/Parenting outside of marriage: Biodad has no rights - no visitation, no adoption rights, nada, nothing. Mom has no claim on biodad - no support, no inheritance, nada nothing.

Conception/Gestation/Birth/Parenting within marriage: When a conflict arises, decision will go to the one that allows the child to be born - ie the parent that wants the child will have final say. In case of divorce, the child is entitled to support of both parents and 50/50 custody will be the default position unless other compelling factors are apparent.

Illegal Aliens - pic of the day and playing the Bu$Hitler and Reichwing card

Straight out of Pasadena we find that these 'demonstrations' were partly organized by far-Left anti-American groups:

“I don’t want to use the word Nazis,” said Borbon of those who support expelling all illegal immigrants, “but many people are afraid of what’s happening in society. We understand the middle class is becoming poor and people don’t understand what is happening in society, and people try to make immigrants the scapegoat.”

Members of The World Can’t Wait, which organized many of the Saturday demonstrators, weren’t so kind.

“Attacks on immigrants are one cornerstone of the whole program of war and repression, hate and intolerance that this regime is putting into place. People look at this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so,” reads a statement from the group.

Despite Bush’s stance on immigration reform being markedly less reactionary than many of his Republican colleagues, the group did not hold back on criticizing his administration, which was also the target of many student protesters.

“The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come,” read a statement by the group.

March 29, 2006

Ingratitude from those we educate - part Duex

Granted, listening to some of my officers yesterday laugh and joke about the "walkouts", most of these kids didn't have a clue of what they were doing. A good portion of "striking" students considered this as a great excuse to cut class. But you look at the these idiots carrying large Mexican flags (like, they bought them??) and you know they're being directed by adults who basically are anti-American. They want to come here for FREE education, FREE medical and cash jobs to send the money in remittances to support the corrupt Mexican government, but give back anything to the country that has made all that possible?

Where to start. Arrest, jail and even confiscate the businesses of employers who blatantly hire illegals.

This insanity has got to stop. Vampire President Vicente Fox is even trying to get Canada to succor his people. Fix Mexican economy? Stop the corruption? Why the fuck should he?

Canada does have an advantage in saying "no". They don't have to worry about the Mexican military standing on the border and shooting at Canadians while protecting criminals coming across the border.

March 28, 2006

What is Feminism?

Ilkya rounds up a series of posts and links with some of the conclusions she's come to while asking "What is Feminism?". If her site is new to you, take some time and read the runup posts and links she provides. It demonstrates that "Feminism" is really not a narrow set of beliefs.

However, there is a lot left hanging at this point. (which is why I love the title of her post "Past Imperfect") One of the things she has had to confront is (and done in wonderful Laugh Out Loud fashion) is the strawfeminist; that series of counter-arguments, most not offered in good faith, that boil down to the phrase Why do you hate men?. Ilyka tilts at these windmills quite effectively.

My followup questions for her, or anyone, deal with both the "strawAntifeminist" and identification of the different "wings" of Feminism. For each time I get roundly flamed as a "manhater" from some MRA who goes through the whole Family Court is a Feminist Driven Conspiracy to Destroy Families and Hurt Fathers schtick, I also get flamed as a "womanhater" by feminists who don't like my asking pointed questions about 3rd trimester abortions.

I understand, too, that labeling different wings of feminist theory as either "gender" or "equity" feminism ALSO gets people hot and bothered.

But how do we... woman who actually do believe in our worth as human beings and our right to the same freedoms and opportunity as our brothers to choose what path we wish and to travel it as far as our talent will take us, differentiate among the pointedly different strains of Feminism? Equity/gender? First, Second, Third wave? Leftwing Feminism? Rightwing Feminism? Anarcho-Feminism?

Or is Feminism not really a separate political theory, but is just a chapter or two within each book assigned to different general political philosophy?

How will we identify ourselves so we don't have to spend so much time re-inventing the wheel each time we encounter a new debate in a new venue?

March 27, 2006

'Dear Christian Peacemaker Losers'

I see you finally got around to thanking the neoimperialist thugs who saved your sorry asses. Like you, I'm grateful no one got hurt during your release rescue, because if an American or British soldier had been killed wasting his time on you, I would have finished you off myself. It's too bad the Islamonutters snuffed that one dude, but, you know, shit happens, especially if you go around sticking your head in septic tanks.

Wow, Jeff has an utterly admirable way with words!

I'd love to contract him to write something to those contemptible illegal aliens thronging the streets in places like Los Angeles over the weekend waving MEXICAN flags -- you know, the corrupt country that gave them NOTHING and forced them to come north -- and acting as if the US -- the country that gives them EVERYTHING -- owes them. They should be on their KNEES kissing the ground of the US that provides them with a free education, free medical care, and opportunity to LIVE.

Ingratitude - the fastest way to prove the true content of one's character.

March 25, 2006

Twins Blogging!

Really nice weather and I walked Sean and Nikolas over to our neighborhood park to burn off some that little boy energy. Last couple of weekends it has been raining and I'd like my couches to take a break from being playground equipment.

Click on the pics for the really BIG image
Note there is still some snow on the mountains. Those are south-facing slopes.

March 24, 2006

Uh oh... Jeff Goldstein's site under attack?

Jeff's site is down (12:53 pm PST). Why is this noteworthy? Well, the usual suspects on the Left have taken aim at him personally over the past few days and Jeff even mentioned a sudden burst of suspicious activity coming from a particular site a day or so ago.

What was Jeff's sin that had the Left cult members in a fit of blogger-style rioting?

He...[gasp!] banned a commenter! Oh, the HORRORS! The CRUSHING of dissent! The Jack-booted THUGGERY!

With the huge volume of readers Jeff has, I find it amazing (and I am grateful) that he even has comments any more.

March 23, 2006

'Socialism makes people worse'

Enough generations of socialist policies have now passed for us to judge their effects. They are bleak. Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse.

Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed.

And that is why the citizens of less socialist -- and more religious -- America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries. That is why Americans volunteer time for the needy so much more than citizens of socialist countries do. That is why citizens of conservative states in America give more charity than citizens of liberal states do. The more Left one identifies oneself on the political spectrum, the more that person is likely to believe that the state, not fellow citizens, should take care of the poor and the needy.

Socialism is the ultimate fantasy of a spoiled child. Feed me! Clothe me! Shelter me! Gimme a pony and never fuss when I ride it through the house and let it sh*t all over the floor!

Everytime I get an email from somewhere outside the US aghast that people actually have to make an effort to pay for health insurance I realize that the philosophy of Spoiled Children Rule has truly convinced some people that there is a free lunch.

US and British troops rescue 'Peace' hostages

U.S. and British troops Thursday freed three Christian peace activists in rural Iraq without firing a shot, ending a four-month hostage drama in which an American among the group was shot to death and dumped on a Baghdad street.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. military spokesman, said the hostages were being held by a "kidnapping cell," and the operation to free the captives was based on information from a man captured by U.S. forces only three hours earlier. [...]

British officials in Baghdad said those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men — members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams — were kidnapped Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox.

The body of Fox, 54, of Clear Brook, Va., was found earlier this month.

"We remember with tears Tom Fox," group co-director Doug Pritchard said. "We had longed for the day when all four men would be released together. Our gladness today is bittersweet by the fact that Tom is not alive to join his colleagues in the celebration."

IIRC, these are the Christian "Peace" activists that did not want to be freed by military forces. Please don't count on 'em to be, like, grateful or anything about not joining Tom Fox at room temperature.

The Christian Peacemaker Teams said the activists went to Iraq "motivated by a passion for justice and peace." Group volunteers have been in Iraq since October 2002, investigating allegations of abuse against Iraqi detainees by coalition forces. Its teams promote peaceful solutions in conflict zones.

"They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers," Pritchard said.

He also called for coalition forces to leave the country.

"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq," Pritchard said.

Just goes to show that being "Christian" is no guarantee of good morals, or even good manners.

Since these "Christian" peace terrorist-enablers won't thank the US and British forces for their lives, let me say to those brave soldiers - Gentlemen, ladies there are those who grateful for your dedication and your bravery. We salute you. Be assured we will not denigrate your efforts or spit on you upon your return home.

March 22, 2006

Islamist front-group, CAIR, silent on apostasy

Michelle Malkin highlights the case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man facing a death penalty for the "crime" of converting to Christianity sixteen years ago.

CAIR's homepage is curiously silent on this headline grabbing case. What's the leading story on the page? CAIR's meeting on Monday with Condi Rice

The meetings focused on issues such as the American Muslim community's role in outreach efforts to the Islamic world, how to address growing levels of Islamophobia in the West, Muslim condemnations of terrorism and religious extremism, and proposals for joint initiatives.

March 21, 2006

Iraq - three choices predicated on three choices

America can do one of three things to bring "peace" to Iraq.

1) Surrender
2) Negotiate
3) Win

Look at the picture from the "anti-war" demonstration on March 18 in Frisco (then see the whole gallery with pithy commentary at ZombieTime). It's easy to see they enthusiastically support option #1. Defeat of America and Israel (and by extension, Western Civilization) is their faith. Do, go see the oozing antisemitism, the rabid anti-Americanism, the call to anarchy and "crush" capitalism evident in the [cough] "anti-war" [cough] demonstrators. There is no need to wonder why they make common cause with the jihadists.

Some American Leftists are a bit more fastidious, but not by much. They don't even want to address the choices, just ramble on and on about the past, repeating arguments they've lost like repeating mantra's to a string of beads slipping over their fingers again and again and again.

Make no mistake. The wrong choice of three leads to another set of choices. The wrong choice, in support of those people out to demoralize the American military, to cripple our troops, who constantly beat the drum that OUR government is the “real” enemy and the terrorism of 9/11 is really "our fault" or not our concern or only a “criminal” matter, Islamism WILL gain the upper hand. The US might survive but it will be dhimmitized. Islamists have tried in Canada for Sharia law to be accepted. Islamists in Britain work to get polygamy legalized and almost half want Sharia to be the law in areas of Britain dominated by moslems. Is Eurabia in the near future so unthinkable a thing? How long will the US, as we know it today, last against Islamist totalitarian theocracies in place of the EU?

And that's when the second set of three choices comes to the fore when dealing with the ideology of Islamism.

March 20, 2006

Sarandon Withdraws from Sheehan Project

Manhattan: Susan Sarandon, actor and Oscar Winner for 1996's Dead Man Walking has been rumored this week to have been in talks here in New York for an upcoming bio-pic on the Vacaville, California mother and anti-war protester, Cindy Sheehan.

Ms. Sarandon and her long-time partner, Tim Robbins, are known for being vocal about their politics and this project has been seen as a perfect vehicle for Ms. Sarandon who first protested war in Iraq in 2002, calling for "resistance" to the invasion.

However, Ms. Sarandon issued a statement through her publicist today saying only that as much she wanted to work with Ms. Sheehan on this project that scheduling and certain physical aspects required of the role were beyond her at the moment.

"I have the utmost respect for Mother Sheehan," the publicist quoted, "and am sorry I could not commit myself fully to this project."

Contact with the project's organizers found them disappointed but moving forward.

"Of course we are disappointed that Ms. Sarandon won't be able to portray Cindy Sheehan. However, we are fortunate enough to already be in negotiations with another award winning actor of international fame who seems to be a perfect fit for the role."

Gerard Depardieu could not be reached for comment at this time.

/satire
(credit to commentor B Moe who made this suggestion at Wizbang)

Your turn for some musing

What I especially love being part of The Cotillion is much of our "behind the scenes" discussions we hold among ourselves via email or chat. I'm really impressed with the passion and intelligence of my sisters, even if we don't always agree with each other. Our mutual respect is pretty awesome.

I may try and recap some of the points of our discussion this past weekend, but I want to turn to something that is a "hot button" issue that crosses across the ideological lines -- P0rn.

I said in one of my emails: THAT is a major difference between the sexes. Visual p0rn industry is (with a few exceptions) made by men for men. Written erotica or romance novels are read by women.

I find nothing, per se, legally wrong with p0rn as long as all participants (actors, consumers) are in it voluntarily and it's kept away from kids. Personally, a little of it goes a long way and gets pretty boring pretty fast. Your milege may vary.

So, what do you think? Here's a few points to ponder as a start and I hope you all will comment.

Does it objectify women?

Are the depictions of sex and women in contemporary p0rn qualitatively different then the vintage p0rn at the above link?

March 18, 2006

Coyotes!

Rained pretty hard last night and after an exhausting week for the two of us, we had a nice dinner and went to bed early. No alarm but woke up at around six. Hubby is looking out our window "Honey! There's coyotes!" I grabbed my cheapy little digital camera and shot blindly out the rainspeckled window and caught one of the three that were moving, single file, in that easy, quick manner of traveling canines.

Behind our house runs an old railroad right-of-way (no tracks any more) travels north east up to the foothills and southwest down to the valley. It both follows and passes over several natural and cement lined creekbeds that flow down from the mountains. It is a nice flat corridor for bikers, joggers, pet walkers, kids of all ages with ATVs, tricked-out pickups driven by the small-penis variety of male and wildlife. I get all sorts of mountain birds at my bird feeder and roosting in the eucalyptus trees that line the railroad path, from jays to red-tailed hawks to owls. I love the brightly-colored western tanagers as they seasonally migrate to and from the mountains.

We've spotted coyotes from time to time in the larger, natural creekbeds of the area, usually at dawn or dusk. In the winter, when these bold creatures, unafraid of humans, come down from the mountains to forage or hunt pet dog or cat, we can be sitting on the back patio and hear their distinctive yelping.

Along with skunks, possums and raccoons, coyotes have integrated themselves into the suburbia that bumps up against their undeveloped ranges.

I would never consider them anything but wild. I've always made sure my cats have been indoor pets. Anthropomorphizing wildlife is not only disrespectful of nature, but can be deadly.

But I loved watching the bushy-tailed creatures trot by! Neat way to start the day.

March 16, 2006

How to do abortion at home! Fun! Profit! Entertainment! All yours in ten easy lessons from a feminist!

Not for the squeamish, or anyone that takes the whole issue of sexual responsibility seriously, here's little Molly fancying herself the Harriet Tubman of Oppressed by the Patriarchy.

For under $2000, any person with the inclination to learn could create a fully functioning abortion setup allowing for both vacuum aspiration and dilation/curettage abortions. If you are careful and diligent, and have a good grasp of a woman's anatomy you will not put anyone's health or life in danger [ahem..anyone?...ed.], even if you have not seen one of these procedures performed.

Miz Molly By Golly gives a list of equipment, how to prepare the "patient" then gets right down to the nitty-gritty

The first step is to break the membrane holding the fetus inside. You can feel around with the forceps for it. To get an idea of what each part looks like -- and to see the texture so that you understand better how it will feel -- I recommend looking at books with photographs of first trimester fetuses (personal recommendation for its astonishing photographs: A Child is Born), The membrane should be easily broken with the forceps. Depending on how far along the pregnancy is, varying quantities of clear or pinkish fluid may come from the vagina. As you grasp the sac with your forceps, twist it away so that it detaches. You will now need to remove small pieces of fetal material and membrane from the uterus with the forceps. Some of these pieces will be distinctly identifiable as fetal material. Save the material until the end of the procedure on a piece of plastic, so that you can be sure the entire fetus has been removed. If doing this sounds too ethically challenging, remember that fetuses do not have the capacity to feel actual pain until the third trimester. You are not "hurting" it, and it has no awareness, nor the capacity for awareness, that you are extracting it.

Note Miz Molly is no doctor or scientist but she is fully confident in proclaiming that a fetus "feels no pain" until after 24 weeks gestation.

Of course, the fun begins in Miz Molly's comment section. And the general attitude of the gung-ho let's get those gals up in the stirrups with shaved pubes and scrape away crowd is summed up by Everybody's Easy Lay Megan (at 3:24)

To my main point- Sex feels good. I'm going to have sex whenever and wherever I want. Human beings have evolved to this luxury, and I'm going to take advantage of it. I do everything I can to make sure I don't get pregnant, but if I do, you can bet your Bibles that I would get an abortion. And don't you dare tell me that if I got pregnant it was my own fault.

Here I spend the last week or so arguing for males and females to grow up and exercise both sexual responsibility and a little wisdom where it concerns children (aka as "fetal material") and Miz Molly proves me engaged in a Sisyphean debate.

March 15, 2006

The Cotillion -- Themed dance week

Do not miss visiting The Cotillion this week. Instead of the usual one-day carnival of links, we are offering a week of writing from the members based on a singular topic. Cassandra offers up this week's topic

One Step Forward, Or Two Steps Back?
Feminism was supposed to free women from outdated and demeaning gender stereotypes; to empower us as people and put us on a more equal footing with men. Yet now, when women have more education, money, and power than ever before, we seem to have surrendered to the very culture we once viewed as oppressive and sexist. Have women finally transcended sexism and if so, why aren't men jumping on the same bandwagon?

Will women ever view ourselves as more than the sum of our body parts?

March 14, 2006

Vulva Diary: Musings on Gestation, Bastards, 'War between the Sexes' and the children caught in the crossfire

This is the first part of a followup on the so-called "Roe v Wade for Men" lawsuit that has gotten so many so upset. Particularly I want to explain in detail on the how and why I find this lawsuit so abhorent.

Keep in mind that I am always mindful of the difference between the moral and the law. The law is based on morality, but morality is not and should not always be articulated through the legislature. When a law is proposed, it should always be the last course of action because the state finds a compelling interest it cannot solve any other way. Therefore we see three different issues in play here:

Sex between consenting adults

Gestation

Born child

First point - we have pretty much wiped out all laws criminalizing fornication or sodomy. There are no laws against adultery. Invite 25 of your closet friends over to an orgy in your livingroom? As long as the drapes are closed, the law could care less. And the law doesn't care about your own stupidity in what, if any, birth control or protection against STDs you choose. Buddy, you are on your own. Would anyone like to return to the old days or institute any new laws in order to regulate an adult's private sex life? Hands? Bueller? Caveat Fornicatus

Second point - Gestation. Sorry, guys, but only one person post-conception gestates the 'product of conception'. If a conflict arises on the gestation, who gets the final word? Obviously, this lawsuit says that the male should have "the right" to declare he doesn't want to be a father. Ok. Last I looked, the only country dragging screaming pregnant women into abortion clinics against their will is China. Is that what you want? Because if the child is born then the male is a father whether or not he decides to be a man. The claim is that there is no "parity" with the gestational person who has "all the choices". South Dakota just took that choice away. Are impregnators in SD going to be any less putout because they knocked up a girl in SD and will have to pay child support? If this lawsuit were to go through and males are no longer responsible for the children they create -- that will increase their responsibility for birth control how?

She wants it, he doesn't - whose view prevails?

He wants it, she doesn't - ditto

Third point - A child is born. S/he is entitled, legally, morally and ethically to the support of both parents, regardless of the circumstance of conception. Family law varies from state to state and in many ways some of it is behind the times (ie DNA). Some states have no-fault divorce, some are community property and the vagarities of Family Law from state to state add both to the confusion of the issues. Scrape away the anecdotal horror stories (and it falls on both sides) and get to the core of the issue. If the male of the lawsuit were married to the female would we at all support his idea of "I don't want to be a father." If the marriage busted up, both parents would be compelled to keep supporting the child. So, with this lawsuit, what we are looking at is an idea of creating two classes of children. Legitimate children who are entitled to the support of both parents, and bastards who are legally considered "fatherless" with no right to support or inheritance.

Is that what you want to do to children? Return to the days that children born out of wedlock carry the sin of their parents by being legal BASTARDS?

One of the first things that a divorce lawyer will explain to his/her client before the first hearing on custody "It doesn't matter how nasty your spouse is to you. Someone can be a nasty spouse and a good parent. Deal with it."

Children are not responsible for the stupidity of their parents, yet this lawsuit is about punishing women who choose not to abort their child. If the woman won't kill the child in the womb, the male who doesn't want to be a dad will legally wipe out that child for him.

View from my window

Click for Really Big image

Southern California's version of winter storms finally arrived this weekend and a time to stay inside, fireplace blazing, and mugs of hot tea.

And three-year olds.

Where upon I closed my laptop for the weekend and spent lots of hours drawing, building with blocks, making popcorn and jello jigglers, pillow fights and occassion forays out under the covered patio so the boys could get a little fresh air. Hubby roughhoused with them and picked them up so they could touch the ceiling. We ate hotdogs and watched silly movies (it was a kind of creature feature weekend on sci-fi).

All in all, a fun but tiring weekend. When they went home last night I knew I'd be missing them soon...but not too soon. Gotta have my Wheaties first.

This morning arrived bright and cold (below 40). And as you can see above, the local mountains are covered with that strange white stuff we see so little of. Snow levels fell to between 1500 - 2000 ft. I'm at about 1200. But the snow on the southfacing slopes in the picture will shrink upwards during the day. So I'm enjoying the view while I can.

March 10, 2006

One year ago today

It doesn't seem possible that a year has passed since that tragic day. I can still find myself missing her laughter, especially when little reminders pop up. Just last Christmas, the office staff got pretty little picture frames from Jennifer. Seems she had bought them early in the year, labeled them and set them aside.

46 percent of Americans have negative view of Islam

Stupid and mean ain't no way to go through life, boy

...and when a group of self-selected stupid and mean males file lawsuits like this

A national men's rights group plans to file a federal lawsuit this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit, claiming that fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a child they didn't want -- in a claim they dub "Roe v. Wade … for Men."

A Troy lawyer for the New York-based National Center for Men said he will file a long-shot lawsuit on behalf of 25-year-old Matt Dubay of Saginaw that seeks an order declaring the Michigan Paternity Act unconstitutional. Dubay recently was ordered to pay support for his 8-month-old daughter.

In 2004, Dubay, a computer technician, began dating a woman who worked in cell phone sales. He said she told him she couldn't get pregnant -- because she was using contraception and had physical conditions that prevented her from getting pregnant.

After three months, they stopped dating -- but soon afterward, she told him she was pregnant.

"It's just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices," Dubay said Wednesday night. "I was up front. I was clear that I didn't want to be a father and she reassured me that she was incapable of getting pregnant."

...makes you wonder how many men read it and cringe.

Dubay? If you don't want to be a father - ever - have a vasectomy or make sure you don't put your sperm anywhere near an ovum. A child exists because of YOU and that child - legally, morally and ethically - is entitled to support from both parents. Period. Stop WHINING.

"We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA," Feit said. "A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother."

Again, the idea that the sexes are, and should be treated, the same. Not equally, but the same.

March 07, 2006

A few words on South Dakota

If one needs anymore proof of the 30+ years of cultural intercine warfare that Roe v Wade has wrought, it can be found in the newly signed South Dakota anti-abortion law and the various, hysterical reactions to it -- from BOTH sides.

The law itself is not serious -- the only reason it was passed and signed was as a political gesture to possibly get it to SCOTUS. It makes as much sense as the city council of San Francisco passing an Impeach Bush resolution. The law is as draconian as it can get in regards to abortion this side of Waahabism (or Mexico). This law's radicalism is a mirror image of the "abortion on demand" extremism of the prochoice pro-abortion lobby.

If SCOTUS hadn't diddled in the pneumbras of eminations and, thusly, yanked this important decision from the states, I'm sure I wouldn't be reading close to radioactive posts on so-called feminist blogs about The War On Women [cue screaming horses]. And nothing irks me more than seeing the prolife anti-abortion radicals parade around with offensive photos of "bloody" parts they claim are aborted fetuses.

There are a lot of behaviors and activities that are morally repugnant that are not the province of the law. Such behaviors are the province of citizens to use persuasion on others to ameliorate the behavior.

An adult woman, of sound mind and within the first 9 weeks gestation has (and should keep) the option to seek an abortion sans any government interference. Outside those parameters, the state has the right (and obligation) to regulate both the availibility and circumstances under which abortion will be provided.

Unfortunately, the two extreme sides of this issue are so emotionally wedded to their positions I am not confident this will be resolved either quietly or unemotionally any time soon.

March 05, 2006

'Men are great, but they do not always fit into your timescale'

There's a classic bit in My Cousin Vinny where the long-suffering fiance, Mona, played by Marisa Tomei, is arguing with Vinny about their delayed family plans

Meanwhile, TEN YEARS LATER, my niece, the daughter of my sister is getting married. My biological clock is [stomps her foot]TICKING LIKE THIS and the way this case is going, I ain't never getting married.

Most women recognize the relatively short timeframe we have for getting pregnant and the many men that just don't 'get it'. So we find the conflict between Vinny and Mona (or Nathan and Adelaide) a goldmine of humorous moments.

However, the chuckles start getting thin when our culture rejects the notion that a child deserves both a mother and a father.

This development comes as legal experts warned that hospitals face potential court cases under rights laws if they deny single women their right to motherhood.

Women suing hospitals over finite fertility treatments because, damn them, they are discriminating when they give first priority to couples.

Free treatment for single women will also reignite the debate about whether or not children need a father ... The Commons Science and Technology Committee has already highlighted the inequalities that exist in the laws governing fertility treatment such as the need for a father.

Ok. Color me old-fashioned, but is that really debatable?

"It is hard to see how a blanket refusal to treat people on the basis of their sexual orientation or single status would survive a challenge under the Human Rights Act," said the Liberal Democrat MP, who is also a member of Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights.

"Given that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that children do no worse in such households, it is unethical medically to refuse to treat people."

We now live in a culture ruled by "studies" and "polls" that replace ethics and common sense. Alledgedly, children do no worse in single-mom households so to limit single females access to free fertility treatments is a violation of Human Rights.

We have moved from understanding that because of death, divorce or other circumstances that many children will be raised in a single-parent home, to now declaring any hint of holding up a two-parent household as optimal for children is bigotry punishable by law.

Someone please explain to me how we can expect males to rise to the responsibility of being men and fathers when we tell females they can eschew their responsibility as women in securing the best for their children?

March 04, 2006

NAACP Image awards - things that make you go 'huh?'

Presented annually, the NAACP Image Awards is the nation’s premier event celebrating the outstanding achievements and performances of people of color in the arts as well as those individuals or groups who promote social justice.

Last night the Fox broadcast network aired the NAACP Image Awards program. We happened to catch a few minutes while channel surfing, while they were running an “In Memoriam” montage of photos of people who had passed away in the last year. Under the picture of each person was a short description, two or three words - “actor”, “comedian”, “civil rights activist”, “musician”, etc.

Among those honored were Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Richard Pryor, Lou Rawls . . . . and Stanley “Tookie” Williams, who was executed in December 2005 for murdering four people. The description under his picture read only “anti-gang activist.”

Tookie was an unrepentant, multiple murderer. Exactly how does that figure as an "outstanding achievement" by a "person of color?"

March 03, 2006

Jhimmi Carter - how low can he go?

I must confess that Jhimmi (rhymes with 'dhimmi') can still surprise me with how far he is willing to sell out America for his own Sheehanesque agenda

Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador's position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush's Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.

Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."

Who the FUCK does Carter think he is making personal promises on POLICY when he no longer holds any political office?

Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, "The essence of my faith is one of peace." In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush's faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, "We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war." Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.

He also reiterated his known view that most of the problems in the Israeli-Arab front derive from Israel's settlement policies and its building of a defensive barrier in what he insisted on calling "Palestine."

March 02, 2006

Irresponsible Teaching - another case for vouchers

Bennish, possibly unhinged by President Bush's State of the Union address, can be heard comparing Bush with Hitler, sneering at capitalism because ...

"where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights."

... asks why shouldn't America be bombed by Iran or China, since we "kill millions and millions" of their citizens with tobacco.

Actually, Bennish is neither new nor original in using his position of authority in the classroom to attempt to browbeat 14 and 15 y/o's into his Leftist talking-point dogma. What is new is that students (as in this case) have the means to actually record the teacher.

30+ years ago I had at least a couple of teachers who were in the Bennish School of Indoctrination, but there was no way to "prove" what they said. My World History teacher was very pro-Soviet and loved to go off into tangents about how the USSR was very charitable to foreign countries while America only went into the third world to "exploit" it. During my US History class, one teacher went into a rant about how every "white" kid in the class was living on "stolen" land (this teacher later founded the school's La Raza club).

Challenging these teachers was apt to find them ridiculing the student who challenged 'em or punishing the student by lowering their grade.

I know. I challenged 'em both. Too bad I didn't have a means of taping them.